Globalaffairs

Issue 20/April-June 2010
By A.B.

On March 27, after an Arab League summit in Sirt, Libya, the Spanish government, acting as rotating President of the European Union (EU), issued a formal statement in which it apologized with Libya and its leader Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi for the inclusion-at the request of Swiss authorities-of 188 Libyan citizens in the blacklist of personae non gratae in the Schengen Area, a borderless travel zone of 22 EU countries plus Norway and Iceland, of which Switzerland is a member since December 2008. All the individuals were also promptly removed from the list.

This was only the last of the many points scored by the Libyan leader since the beginning in July 2008 of a dispute between the Gaddafi’s Jamahiriya and Switzerland. The controversy was triggered by the arrest in Geneva of the Colonel’s 29-year-old son Hannibal and his wife for allegedly maltreating their domestic staff. Libya responded with immediate retaliation, including a cut-off of oil supplies, a drastic reduction of commercial flights and the closure of Libyan branches of several Swiss companies. Also, two Swiss businessmen were arrested (or taken hostage, according to the Swiss authorities) for supposed visa irregularities. Further, Gaddafi inflicted Switzerland several public humiliations, ranging from his repeated claims for the country’s partition among Germany, France and Italy to last February’s declaration of jihad against the Swiss. In August 2009, Gaddafi also expressed his desire to “wipe Switzerland off the map”, if he owned nuclear weapons.

What has been really striking in the development of the affair is the weak response Europe has put into place. No European leader ever made a statement against the North African leader in almost two years. On the contrary, the side seemingly getting more support was Libya, in spite of widespread popular antipathy for its leader on the continent. While European countries, through the EU and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), were putting pressure on Switzerland to restructure its banking system and get rid of its century-long bank secrecy, Gaddafi was being received with all honours-and unusual tolerance for his megalomaniac behaviours-in France, Spain and Italy.

Secretary-General Gets Ready for G-8 Summit Family Photo Shoot. UN Photo/Mark Garten

Europe seems to believe that Gaddafi is not serious. The widespread thesis argues that his extravagance, mostly directed at domestic consumption, should not be taken at face value. Surely, economic retaliations against Switzerland had only marginal effect on an economy so tightly integrated with its neighbours and the supposed Holy War has not yet to produce the deadly consequences Gaddafi seemed to imply when he called for it. Libya remains committed to the business-friendly policies it recently adopted and European oil companies are working safely and smoothly in spite of the global come-back of resource nationalism. There is also no evidence of resumption neither of the WMD programme abandoned in 2003 nor of any support for terrorist organizations.

Another factor shifting the balance in favour of Gaddafi is his age. The Colonel will soon turn 70 and-in power since 1969- does not seem to enjoy perfect health. As his unique (and little understood by Western observers) brand of Islamic socialism and accommodation between Libyan tribal groups is widely recognized as unable to survive its founder, European countries are already positioning themselves for the aftermath. In particular, the most likely candidate to succession, his eldest son Saif al-Islam (a PhD in political science at the London School of Economics) holds out high hopes for the future of the country thanks to his occasional public statements on democracy and economic reform in the Arab world-even though previous experiences with Western-education Arab leaders, notably Hamad al-Thani of Qatar and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, did not bring about the expected outcome.

The main factor currently determining the stance of European towards Libya is, however, the presence of logics of competition between its national governments-especially the Mediterranean ones, whose stakes in Libya are higher-to look the most pro-Libyan country in the eyes of its leader and be awarded of generous procurement contracts or some oil and gas development rights. Recent trips of Gaddafi to France and Italy have in fact resulted in lucrative investments in the energy, nuclear technology and road infrastructure sectors for local firms.

The situation is, however, almost paradoxical if considered that Europe as a whole has very little to lose. Gaddafi has in fact no choice other than cooperating with Europe if it wants to continue the process of reintegration in the international community.

A resilience of the current state of tension-and no element leads to optimistic forecasts about the end of the dispute-may have repercussion on the already not-too-high standing of Europe in international affairs, as the image of 27 countries at the mercy of Libya will definitely affect the perception of the EU in the world-especially in Africa, where Gaddafi (who struggled to obtain the Chair of the African Union last year) is enjoying increasing influence. The signal sent by these events is one of excessive softness and bears highly unbeneficial consequences for future dealings with Libya and other developing countries. Further, tolerance for Gaddafi’s authoritarian style of government is damaging for countries which often use human rights and normative arguments as one of their main tools of diplomacy.

An end game should be called soon-and this may be the window of opportunities for EU foreign policy supremo Lord Catherine Ashton to bring everybody together while strengthening the clout of her newborn post.

A. B.
Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.

The views and opinions of contributors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Global Affairs